IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10509

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES LEE WILLIAMS, II, also known as James Lee Williams,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-225-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Lee Williams, II, appeals the 120-month above-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his conviction for wire fraud. Williams challenges 

the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) that was applied 

based on a finding that the offense involved sophisticated means. He argues 

that the district court plainly erred in applying the enhancement because the 

fraudulent scheme was basic rather than sophisticated.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 6, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10509 Document: 00512432451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2013
No. 13-10509

Because Williams failed to object to the enhancement in the district 

court, we review for plain error only. See United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To meet this standard, he must 

show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial 

rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) provides for a two-level adjustment if the offense

involved sophisticated means. The commentary to § 2B1.1 notes that 

“‘[s]ophisticated means’ means especially complex or especially intricate 

offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense.” 

§ 2B1.1, comment. (n.8(B)).

Williams’s scheme involved numerous steps as well as a variety of means 

to conceal the fraud. He took steps to disguise the fraud by establishing a tollfree telephone number, representing himself as a ticket broker or employee of 

an airline, and sending fraudulent confirmation emails to purchasers. In light 

of these facts, the district court did not commit clear or obvious error in 

applying the sophisticated means enhancement, and he fails to establish plain 

error in the application of the enhancement. See United States v. Conner, 537 

F.3d 480, 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding enhancement on clear-error review 

when defendant resold goods on eBay that were fraudulently purchased and 

used a fictitious account in the offense).

He also argues that the district court plainly erred in failing to articulate 

its reasons for the above-guidelines sentence imposed. He contends that the 

court did not take into account his previous convictions and that, therefore, his 

prior criminal history was not the basis for the upward variance. Further, 

Williams asserts that this court cannot look to the district court’s written 

statement of reasons to support the sentence because these reasons were 

2

 Case: 13-10509 Document: 00512432451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2013
No. 13-10509

“already represented in the court’s Guidelines calculations of the criminal 

history category and the rejection of the acceptance of responsibility decrease.”

As Williams failed to present this argument in the district court, we 

review for plain error. See Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d at 361. While 

within-guidelines sentences require “little explanation,” the district court must 

give a more detailed explanation for a non-guidelines sentence. United States 

v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005).

Contrary to Williams’s assertion, the court was clear in its consideration 

of Williams’s prior convictions as a reason for a sentence outside the guidelines 

range. The court did not consider charged conduct for which it was unable to 

determine whether Williams had been convicted; however, the court 

considered the actual convictions. Additionally, Williams’s prior criminal 

history was not completely taken into account by the calculation of his criminal 

history score because many convictions did not receive criminal history points. 

Regardless, the district court was not precluded from considering factors 

already incorporated into the guidelines calculation. See United States v. 

Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008).

The district court’s justification for the sentence imposed was “factspecific and consistent with the sentencing factors enumerated in [§] 3553(a).” 

United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the court 

adequately explained the reasons for the sentence in its Statement of Reasons.

See United States v. Gore, 298 F.3d 322, 325-26 (5th Cir. 2002). Williams fails 

to show that the district court plainly erred in this regard.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-10509 Document: 00512432451 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/06/2013